1.) There is a great amount of acting from all the actors in the movie. From Johnny Depp to Daisy Ridley, all of these actors did an impressive job in their performances, but the best out of all of them is Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. A suave, intelligent, and determined detective with a damaged past who will solve the case no matter how difficult it may be, Kenneth performed well to stand out from all the other actors (that and being the main character also helps).
2.) The visuals look great. Even though there at times that they are obviously in front of a green screen, it is at least a huge improvement over Thor: Ragnarok. It also thanks to the cinematography with its long shots that shows off many of the settings and the actors’ talents. It kind of makes me feel like watching an old-school film that has so much charm to it, because those films actually lets the actors show their true potential abilities as actors. Great visuals combined with great cinematography makes this movie feel like an old-school film.
3.) I mentioned this before in other certain movies, so I will make this quick: I am a fan of the set and costume designs of the early 1900s (in this case, 1934), and they look great here. They look like they belong in that timeline, and one of the many things that stand out.
1.) There are so many major characters that there are too many of them to follow. I would not mind if the movie spent some time with them, but it does not since many of them are being dodgy and avoidable throughout most of the movie time. As a result, many of these major characters end up being background characters which is bad since this is a murder mystery, and all suspects need some attention. You know what is a bad sign in mysteries? You do not remember the suspects’ names when they are brought up since the movie fails to spend time with them in order to make them interesting or compelling…
2.) …Speaking of mystery, it did get exciting on its initial start, but it started to get boring as it progressed. There are so much information and characters that the movie talks about that I kept forgetting some important information that is essential for the mystery. I love mysteries, but they need to be interesting and contained enough to help me get invested in them, and it unfortunately does not do that.
3.) The tone can be inconsistent. From the beginning up until the murder, the tone is light and comedic, but it gets dark when the murder occurs. The change of tone can be annoying to some people, but it is a noticeable abrupt change that is worth mentioning.
Based on the 1934 book of the same name by Agatha Christie, Murder on the Orient Express is one the most popular murder mystery books of all time (something I should really read since I have not read it nor have I seen the 1974 film version). Now, we have a remake based on the book, and something tells me that the book and 1974 film did it better. This movie was not bad, but I hardly call it a great murder mystery. With major characters/suspects we barely know and information that overwhelms the entire movie, the mystery loses its flavor, and it becomes a bit of a slog to go through this movie. If you want a great mystery film that has been around recently, Prisoners is a great film for you. If you wanted a great murder mystery by the great Agatha Christie, maybe the 1974 film is better (or even the book), because it is certainly not this one despite some good talent here.